• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Was the Nkjv translated from same sorce texts as used by the 1611 translators for Kjv then?

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
This is Untrue:


The words "of God" ARE found in the Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible.

The entire Greek phrase "the love OF GOD" is found in Beza's Greek texts of 1589 and 1598, the Complutensian polyglot version of 1514, the ancient Armenian bible, the Latin Clementine Vulgate - "In hoc cognovimus caritatem Dei"., Greek manuscript 52, as well as the Greek text of the Trinitarian Bible Society put out in 1894.
In that case, why are the words in italics in the KJV? Italics are used when English words have been inserted by the translators which do not translate any word(s) in the original language. Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that the verse isn't referring to God's love. The context shows that it is. You say that the words "of God" ARE found in the Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible, but then in the next post you quote John Gill saying: "The phrase "of God" is not in the Oriental versions, nor in the Greek copies, but is in the Complutensian edition, and in the Vulgate Latin version, and is favoured by the Syriac version." So are you saying that the KJV is based on the Complutensian, the Vulgate and the Syriac?
 
Last edited:

KJB1611reader

Active Member
In that case, why are the words in italics in the KJV? Italics are used when English words have been inserted by the translators which do not translate any word(s) in the original language. Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that the verse isn't referring to God's love. The context shows that it is. You say that the words "of God" ARE found in the Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible, but then in the next post you quote John Gill saying: "The phrase "of God" is not in the Oriental versions, nor in the Greek copies, but is in the Complutensian edition, and in the Vulgate Latin version, and is favoured by the Syriac version." So are you saying that the KJV is based on the Complutensian, the Vulgate and the Syriac?
Well, did read the link? Anyway, why is 1 John 2:23 end in italics?


Exodus 19:12
“And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:”

Not is in italics...
 

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
Well, did read the link? Anyway, why is 1 John 2:23 end in italics?


Exodus 19:12
“And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:”

Not is in italics...
I did read the link.

As to why the end of 1 John 2:23 is in italics, John Gill explains:

[but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also]: this clause is left out in many copies, and stands as a supplement in our version; but is in the Alexandrian copy, in four of Beza's manuscripts, and in some others; and in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions; and confirms and illustrates what is before said; for as he that denies the sonship of Christ cannot hold the paternity of God, so he that owns the sonship of Christ, the second Person, maintains the paternity of the first; for these two are correlates, and mutually put, or take away each other: no mention is made of the Spirit, because, as yet, no controversy had risen concerning him.
 

KJB1611reader

Active Member
παϲ ο αρνουμενοϲ τον υν ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υν και τον πατερα εχει

 

KJB1611reader

Active Member
Because of homoeoteleuton (to.n pate,ra e;cei … to.n pate,ra e;cei), K L and most minuscules, followed by the Textus Receptus, have accidentally omitted the second part of the verse (o` o`mologw/n … e;cei). The words, however, belong to the original text, being strongly supported by a A B C P many minuscules vg syrp, h copsa, bo arm eth al. - bibliplus
 

KJB1611reader

Active Member
[but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also]: this clause is left out in many copies, and stands as a supplement in our version; but is in the Alexandrian copy, in four of Beza's manuscripts, and in some others; and in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions; and confirms and illustrates what is before said; for as he that denies the sonship of Christ cannot hold the paternity of God, so he that owns the sonship of Christ, the second Person, maintains the paternity of the first; for these two are correlates, and mutually put, or take away each other: no mention is made of the Spirit, because, as yet, no controversy had risen concerning him. - Gill
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Well, did read the link? Anyway, why is 1 John 2:23 end in italics?


Exodus 19:12
“And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:”

Not is in italics...
Do you hold that either the Holy Spirit guided and showed to the 1611 team what would be always the correct rendering into English, or that they received secondary inspiration off the already inspired TR text?
 

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
The need for use of the same exact measures and standards in evaluating translation decisions is not a non-issue.

The Scriptures clearly condemn the use of divers measures [double standards] as an abomination to the LORD (Proverbs 20:10).

Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.

I have really studied it out, perhaps more carefully and thoroughly than any KJV-only author has.


the truth that the NKJV was based on the same multiple original-language texts of Scripture as the KJV is.
I have often wondered why you don't know anything about what you try to claim.

Stop saying, "the NKJV was based on the same multiple original-language texts of Scripture as the KJV is".

That is an incredibly uneducated thing to say.

The New King James Version is not a true King James Bible. It mixes some true King James accuracy with a lot of Alexandrian and "new version" errors. We know this because the NKJV tells us which ancient texts they used when they made up their Bible. Don't be fooled by the clever names and symbols. Here is what they say they really used:

  • The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or BHS. This is not the preserved Hebrew Old Testament. This one is approved by the Vatican (Roman Catholic religion) and printed jointly by the Vatican and Protestant Bible societies. In 1937 the "scholars" rejected the preserved Ben Chayyim it for an "older" (but not more accurate) text: the Leningrad Ms B 19a (also called the "Ben Ashertext"). The BHS states:

    "...it is a welcome sign of the times that it was published jointly in 1971 by the Wurttemburg Bible Society, Stuttgart, and the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome...."
    --Prolegomena, p. XII

  • The Septuagint, or LXX. As you have seen1, the so-called "Septuagint" is a fable. It was really written after Jesus was born, not before. There are many Septuagints, since each Alexandrian Old Testament is different from every other. Know what they are? Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus - the same exact codices (big books) where the modern perverted New Testaments come from!

  • The Latin Vulgate. This is not the preserved Vaudois Christian, Old Latin Vulgate. The NKJV "scholars" consulted the perverted, Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.

  • The Dead Sea Scrolls, or DSS. It is clear through Scripture that God preserved His words through the tribe of Levi (Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8 and Malachi 2:7). The Qumran community that produced the DSS are never said to be Levites. But though God says "the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth" (Malachi 2:7), the NKJV committee instead consulted the DSS as well.

  • The Majority Text, or MT. With a name like Majority Text it should be a compilation of the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts. But it is not. The "Majority Text" is actually a hand-picked set of manuscripts grouped together by "pro-Alexandrian" liberal Hermann von Soden2. Less than 8%of the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts were compared to each other by von Soden's team of collators! But the NKJV people give the MT great prominence, writing this inaccurate information in the footnotes.

    So people think that the King James is wrong, since it disagrees with "the Majority Text." Who cares? The "Majority Text" is not the majority of texts! The "Majority Text" is a big fake. Don't believe it. And don't trust any Bible that does.

1 See "What is the Septuagint?"
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Stop saying, "the NKJV was based on the same multiple original-language texts of Scripture as the KJV is".

That is an incredibly uneducated thing to say.

The New King James Version is not a true King James Bible. It mixes some true King James accuracy with a lot of Alexandrian and "new version" errors. We know this because the NKJV tells us which ancient texts they used when they made up their Bible. Don't be fooled by the clever names and symbols. Here is what they say they really used:

  • The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or BHS. This is not the preserved Hebrew Old Testament. This one is approved by the Vatican (Roman Catholic religion) and printed jointly by the Vatican and Protestant Bible societies. In 1937 the "scholars" rejected the preserved Ben Chayyim it for an "older" (but not more accurate) text: the Leningrad Ms B 19a (also called the "Ben Ashertext"). The BHS states:

  • The Latin Vulgate. This is not the preserved Vaudois Christian, Old Latin Vulgate. The NKJV "scholars" consulted the perverted, Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.
The KJV translators consulted "the perverted Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate," and they even borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The KJV translators also consulted a printed edition of the Greek Septuagint. KJV defender Edward F. Hills acknowledged that “sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament” (KJV Defended, p. 223). Some of the book titles of OT books in the KJV are transliterations of the book titles in the Greek Septuagint, and the KJV adopted the order of OT books used in the Septuagint and Jerome's Latin Vulgate instead of the order in the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

Concerning the NKJV, James D. Price observed: “Constant reference was made to the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible used by the translators of 1611, the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim. In those few places where the Bomberg text differed from the Stuttgart edition, the Bomberg reading was followed” (King James Onlyism, p. 307). James D. Price listed “nine differences that affect translation” and demonstrated that the NKJV followed the Bomberg edition in those nine places (pp. 222-223). The preface to the NKJV clearly pointed out concerning its Hebrew Old Testament text the fact of “frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25” (p. xxiii). While the NKJV translators made use of a different printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text, they actually followed the same Hebrew text as was used in the making of the KJV. In the very small number of places (only eight or nine have been identified) where their printed edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text differed from the Bomberg edition of Chayyim, the NKJV translators followed the same Hebrew text that underlies the KJV.

Stating the truth that the NKJV is based on the same multiple original-language texts of Scripture as the KJV and pre-1611 English Bibles are is not at all "an incredibly uneducated thing to say". Why would I stop stating the truth? The NKJV is a true revision of the KJV in the same way that the KJV is a true revision of the Bishops' Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles.
 
Top